The stock map didn't use all texture slots, but I'm now filling them all. Like the vp repaint, my textures are all 1024 pixels. I will make no bumpH textures, which for weaker computers is a bit of a help on frame rates. And I have no plans to make _tree textures that specify where to place the auto generated trees; another aid for less strong hardware.
I've not done any kind of comparison but I do wonder if the number of unique textures displayed at once might impact frame rates. For instance, it surely must be smoother to fly over a landscape where just one texture fills everything as opposed to the landscape being filled with a number of different textures. The stock maps, even if a decent enough variety of textures are used, tend to full huge areas with a single texture, often resulting in a not large number of different textures being drawn.
Where not forest covered, I'll be mixing a number of textures on a small scale so as to obtain an organic variegation, and to disguise repetitive tiling artifacts, of course.
In any event, my aim is visual attractiveness with as low a frame rate hit as possible.
On a side note, for my Green Hell map (latest iteration, which has the 1944 extension) I have disabled all bumpH and _tree textures, which definitely helps with frame rates for my 2019 era computer (i5 with RTX 2060). But for really object intensive areas--the Port Moresby airfield complex especially!--frame rates are disappointingly awful. I may at some point go on an object weeding-out mission!
Knowing that the omission of bridges renders this map inapplicable for DGen campaigns, would it be worthwhile to scrap the stock objects, or at least some of them, and place more sensible ones? Or is this inadvisable due to any single missions or static campaigns having existing objects as targets?